Where would you make your stand?

[Bushman5]

Which sports arena would you prefer?

you mean which turnkey detention center, scattered thruout the country, would you prefer?

 

[abo4ster]

Back to the original question ~ while I am not a sheeple, I do and will appear as one which will be an advantage should the time come.

Regarding the Russian societal changes and as was mentioned in this thread briefly, here is an link for Orlov and a brief snipit. The links below are not my opinion, just sharing the information as it came up...

Five Stages of Collapse by Orlov
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2008/02/five-stages-of-collapse.html
""Stages of Collapse
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual" is lost. The future is no longer assumed resemble the past in any way that allows risk to be assessed and financial assets to be guaranteed. Financial institutions become insolvent; savings are wiped out, and access to capital is lost.

Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall provide" is lost. Money is devalued and/or becomes scarce, commodities are hoarded, import and retail chains break down, and widespread shortages of survival necessities become the norm.

Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will take care of you" is lost. As official attempts to mitigate widespread loss of access to commercial sources of survival necessities fail to make a difference, the political establishment loses legitimacy and relevance.

Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take care of you" is lost, as local social institutions, be they charities or other groups that rush in to fill the power vacuum run out of resources or fail through internal conflict.

Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in the goodness of humanity is lost. People lose their capacity for "kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity" (Turnbull, The Mountain People). Families disband and compete as individuals for scarce resources. The new motto becomes "May you die today so that I die tomorrow" (Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago). There may even be some cannibalism.""

Do NOT agree with everything here, but it is an interesting read...
Social Collapse Best Practices:
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-practices.html

Going to go pop some more popcorn for this thread now.

 

[Old CW4]

It may be unjustified but I have a fear of many of the modern big city dwellers. If the brown stuff hits the fan in a major way, IMO the cities will quickly become war zones. With the power off and emergency response forces curtailed, look out. The canned goods and so on in the stores won't last more than a couple of weeks and I can foresee some real combat breaking out as food supplies quickly dwindle. The next logical move on the part of the gangbangers, et al, will be to fan out into the countryside. They'll be heavily armed, in large numbers, and probably pretty well organized. Rural enclaves near the cities/towns will have a rough time combatting these groups. That's why I want to be in a remote hidey-hole and by myself or with no more than two or three other persons max. IMO, most western states and their mountains are an iffy choice because of the winters and the necessity of having to obtain and preserve enough food for a six to eight months winter. As I learned a long time ago in arctic survival schools, you don't freeze to death in the cold, you starve to death. It takes a lot of daily calories to sustain the body when it's really cold.

Thus my choice for a densely wooded area as low in elevation as possible. A second choice would be more 'benign' but remote areas of the desert. As for living by hunting/trapping/etc., I know of no native peoples in this country who survived solely by those means. It's just not practical and too labor intensive and 'iffy' to preserve meat. Hunt/fish/trap, sure, but it has to be supplemented by plant material. Thus my choice for a hidden clearning in dense forest. I can 'farm' there and hike out to take game because there isn't much game in a dense forest, the big game is in more open areas where there's forage.

As for bartering, seems to me ammo would be a prime item and so would salt. It's an absolute necessity of life and if I have to bug out to my hidey-hole, a hell of a lot of salt goes with me and a sizeable stash is already out there. Please keep that one in mind, long term you'll die without it. As for dry food storage, rice and beans are my two main choices. Best way to preserve them is to fill big plastic garbage cans about 3/4 full, then set a small quantity of dry ice in a bowl on top of the beans or rice. The dry ice will evaporate into CO2 and that, being heavier than air, will settle down into the commodity. When the CO2 begins to overflow the garbage can, take out the dry ice, put on the lid, and seal it REALLY well with caulk and duct tape. It will then stay good for years because the CO2 kills weevils, other bugs, mould, and most bacteria.

I guess it's a toss up, hide in a small group or join/organize a clan and try to fight it out. My choice is to get lost and pretty much stay lost until things settle down. I can always come out on a recon to see what's happening but such 'patrols' will be few, far apart, and carefully planned and executed.

Are we going to have a doom's day scenario? I sure as hell hope not but if we do I want to be a long, difficult, hard to find ways away from the population centers.

 

[not2sharp]

I'm curious as to why you think a recession/depression might lead to a failure of food deliveries and extended power cuts?
It doesn't seem to me that there is any historic basis for this supposition.

I think it would take something like a breakdown in the supply and distribution of oil to trigger widespread food shortages in the cities. Or widespread crop failure.

My thoughts are that the present problems could result either a sharp currency devaluation, or that the damage to our financial institutions gets so severe that we suffer a massive loss of liquidity. So either the banks are closed and we simply cannot get access to money, atms are dead, checks can't clear; or, our creditors pull out and the dollar collapses so that the costs of everything rises several hunderd percent in an instant shock. When you see the government rushing to boost FDIC reserves by $500 billion, it may be an indication that they are imminently expecing massive bank failures.

n2s

 

[lvbuckeye27]

if anyone wants link to a very long discussion on the economy hit me up.

as for what i'll do when TSHTF (already happening) when it becomes unbearable here, i'm heading for Ohio with whatever i can carry. any non-essential item gets left behind. i.e. my $1k golf clubs won't do me a lick of good... on second thought, maybe i'll put 'em on Craig's list...

 

[A.W.U.K.]

Against that, the USA is more than self-sufficient in food.
In the UK a currency collapse is both more likely, as the Pound is at best a secondary reserve currency, and potentially far more calamitous as we import nearly half of our food. Not only that but we have a far more urbanised society with very few people having a direct connection to agriculture, no wilderness and a relatively small amount of edible wildlife.
All this puts the people of the USA in a highly enviable position, in the event of the type of events you describe, in my view.

 

[dante]

The USA is the richest country in the world because of the wide variety of natural resources it has and the way it harness them through high technology. That said, the rate of consumption and waste is also brutal.

I saw a video where a guy said that in the 1930-1950 US could have fed the entire world 5 times, but now imports 35% of it's food supply. They have abandoned a few industries in favor of importation (due to lower prices).

At the very least most people here are accustomed to a high standard of living regarding to food choices and availability. If that changes for the worst (only certain type of foods and products) there is going to create general discomfort and fear of the outlook this represents.

We are far from a famine scenario but fear of poverty (or perception of poverty) is a powerful force. In addition, governments have traditionally used food to control the population, that is probably the greatest fear of the people here, to use the perception of scarcity to scare people. You don't need brute force to bend the will of people, after 9-11 several laws that would have been considered invasive and anti-constitutional were enacted without consultation and in the heat of the moment most of the people embraced them with a smile. Now it's another story but now it's too late (maybe not but we have to fight uphill to recover freedoms).

When the OP stated "Stand your ground" I took it as a stand your ground against that type of psychological attack, that is why I love the concept of sustainable survival, living less of the grid etc.. When you are more independent like that you are more resistant to fear and ignorance. I don't see the government taking direct action against a country with 60 million guns. I see an iron fist in a silk glove.

 

[Thomas Linton]

First, you are changing things- hard times and unemployment are not equal values. unemployment is, however, often a factor in hard times.

Economic "hard times" means to me, among other things, high unemployment. I should recognize that such terms have no set meaning.

Fortunately, you have a way out of anything I say, because now there's that wonderful little scalable word "widespread" that can be redefined endlessly.

Define it as you will. Give concrete examples that support your position.

For example, I'm willing to bet the Katrina aftermath would not count as widespread at this point in the conversation. Whether or not hard times had anything to do with it becoming a disaster is arguable, certainly.

Respectfully, it is not arguable. A hurricane is not an economic condition. The issue I was trying to address was the fear that current economic problems create a risk in the U.S. of civil unrest and the breakdown of normal food and energy distribution. I contend that history is not consistent with that view. although the past is no guarantee of the future. We have had far worse economic conditions without civil unrest or the breakdown of normal food and energy distribution.

The first Depression resulted in major programs to enrich food and make provisions to stave off famine and starvation- out of NECESSITY. MEaning, because it was happening. You'll also find that this era saw the rise of most of the electric utility cooperatives as the corporate "free market" utility companies hadn't the money nor desire to maintain and deploy service in some areas.

We have had several "recessions," including at least two in the 1800's and six since 1900. One is called, by convention, the Depression. Hunger in the Depression was not caused by civil unrest or the breackdown of normal food and fuel distribution. It was caused by poverty. The government dealt, fairly well with hunger and poorly with the undelying casuses of poverty, which is why we had very high unemployement until the war economy cut in. The first peacetime year after 1929 without recession was 1946. Electrical coops and government energy programs (e.g. TVA) extended the preexisting energy distribution network to areas that had lacked electricity before the Depression.

I'm not even going to respond about Russia, the information available is astounding. give yourself 5 hours of link following without cherry picking Coulter/Rush agitprop and you might be amazed at how far things did go down in some segments and time periods during the 90s.

Please note that I did not comment on Russia.

Concrete evidence. please.

 

[koyote]

Respectfully, it is not arguable. A hurricane is not an economic condition. The issue I was trying to address was the fear that current economic problems create a risk in the U.S. of civil unrest and the breakdown of normal food and energy distribution. I contend that history is not consistent with that view. although the past is no guarantee of the future. We have had far worse economic conditions without civil unrest or the breakdown of normal food and energy distribution.

Just for the sake of argument, do you think that a different economic condition overall would have made a difference regarding Katrina- with regards to a: funding of dykes, levees, and emergency support infratructure and b: overal economic status of the area?

We have had several "recessions," including at least two in the 1800's and six since 1900. One is called, by convention, the Depression. Hunger in the Depression was not caused by civil unrest or the breackdown of normal food and fuel distribution. It was caused by poverty. The government dealt, fairly well with hunger and poorly with the undelying casuses of poverty, which is why we had very high unemployement until the war economy cut in. The first peacetime year after 1929 without recession was 1946. Electrical coops and government energy programs (e.g. TVA) extended the preexisting energy distribution network to areas that had lacked electricity before the Depression.

Once of the things that causes the first Depression to be called such- instead of a Recession- is the widespread nature of the collapse. It was global, one of my personal touchstones on defining the current mess as a depression.

Since such large events generally have greater timespans than is given in basic history, one can argue that much of the civil unrest following WW1 through to WW2 was caused- at least in part- by economic disturbances. (I realize it's fun to blame it all on FDR, as many people do, but it's much broader.)

Stating that the government dealt well with hunger (in many cases it didn't) doesn't suddenly mean that the failures of food production and distribution were not issues. They were.

Please note that I did not comment on Russia.

Yet the past 2 decades do show evidence of failures - especially in food and necessary goods (such as fuel) distribution and production. Also civil unrest.


I am not going to take all of my reading over the past 38 years and start teaching a history course, but a basic source quotation is in order:

***
Desperation Sets In

By 1930 life for many Americans had become unbearably grim. The country's economic collapse called for emergency measures and resources beyond the capacity of local and even state governments. Millions of Americans were displaced from homes and jobs—losses of an intensely personal nature. The obvious helplessness of elected officials and the reluctance of national government to consider larger and sometimes more unconventional measures of relief did little to earn the public's confidence. Disillusioned, desperate for solutions that were not forthcoming, and filled with despair, people banded together to take whatever action seemed justified by conditions they saw as not of their own making. In Arkansas a band of nearly five hundred armed farmers demanded food from a Red Cross administrator. When told that all supplies had been exhausted, the farmers descended upon the town of England and stripped its stores of food. Relief demonstrations broke out spontaneously across the nation. In Iowa councils of defense were organized to forestall farm foreclosures. Dairymen in Sioux City declared a general farm strike and prevented shipments of produce from reaching that city. Encouraged by their success, groups of farmers elsewhere came together to carry out similar strikes. Violence frequently resulted. In Nebraska in 1933 farmers, forcing their way past police barricades, marched on the state capitol to demand passage of a moratorium on the repayment of farm debt. In Crawford County, Iowa, bands of farmers and local authorities engaged in pitched battles that were ended when the governor imposed martial law. None of these demonstrations, however, quite achieved the notoriety or caused the federal government more concern than that of the veterans' "bonus march."

The Bonus March

In 1924 Congress, in a display of patriotic emotion and public gratitude, enacted a bill that awarded veterans for their service in World War I a "bonus" payment redeemable in full in 1945. Many veterans, experiencing financial problems both pressing and unanticipated, were eager to receive an earlier payout, a preference provided for in a bill introduced in 1932 by Congressman Wright Patman. In an effort to convince Congress to pass the bill, veterans began to gather in Washington to express their support. Among the first to arrive were a group of several hundred who, under the leadership of Walter W. Waters, referred to themselves as the Bonus Expeditionary Force. It is estimated that the veterans' numbers may have well exceeded sixteen thousand at the peak of their summer encampment in the nation's capital. While a few of the demonstrators occupied empty Treasury Department buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue, the majority settled on vacant land situated in the Anacostia flats along the Potomac River.
The Bonus Riots

On 17 June 1932 the Patman bill failed to pass the Senate, and Congress adjourned without taking any further action. Several of the demonstrators left the city, but the mood among the five thousand or more who remained was sullen. The government, under increased pressure from local residents to remove the veterans, was also running out of patience, but government officials remained undecided as to what action they should take. Tension increased as the marchers set up picket lines around government buildings, including the White House. On 28 July Treasury Department officials asked the police to evict a group of the bonus marchers who had settled into offices on Pennsylvania Avenue. The squatters resisted eviction, and, in the melee that followed, two of the veterans were killed by police, who claimed to have shot in their own defense. Without conferring with the district's police chief, Pelham Glassford, a former brigadier general sympathetic to the plight of the veterans, the police commissioner asked President Hoover for federal troops. Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur was sent to survey the scene and to make an independent assessment of the situation. The general, for reasons which are still unclear, did more than he was asked to do. The cavalry troops MacArthur dispatched to clear the scene drew their sabers and rode into the crowds gathering there. Tear gas was used against demonstrator and onlooker alike. As people fled the area, the cavalrymen, now reinforced with armored vehicles and infantry, moved across the bridge and into the bonus army's encampment, where they met fierce resistance from brick-and-rock-throwing veterans. Initially repulsed, the army returned more determined than ever to overcome any and all resistance. The shelters and possessions of the veterans were burned. Those detained were considered prisoners and roughly treated. For the next two days the demoralized veterans were rounded up, forced into trucks, and transported under guard to areas some distance from the capital, where they were released.

***

While I realize this may be redefined (as our true unemployment numbers have, we're actually higher than 1938 by the standards used at that time) endlessly, I feel this is a simple, basic, short, example of civil unrest.

 

[skimmerhorn]

no one's mentioned reloading and stocking up on reloading supply's! make your own bullets!! their was civil unrest in the great depression it wasn't covered in the media so much because the technology wasn't there as it is today. at that time 90% of the population lived on farms and many were already self-sufficent out of necessity anyway so the depression wasn't a big deal to many of the old farmers. their whole lives were lived in a "depression". today is the exact opposite, most people have no clue as to how to do anything for themselves. they look for the goverment to save them (oh, please help me all mighty goverment!) also, in the GD you didn't have 10's of millions on welfare!!! they even expect the gov. to feed them instead of work for their food. and their housing is paid for. so if things go down hill fast and these leeches on society go hungry, violence will erupt. starvation can be a powerful motivator.

 

[dante]

Stocking on ammo is something I have not done well. With the recent prices increases its gonna hurt.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Just for the sake of argument, do you think that a different economic condition overall would have made a difference regarding Katrina- with regards to a: funding of dykes, levees, and emergency support infratructure and b: overal economic status of the area?

We spent the equivalent in today's dollars of hundreds of billions to CREATE the enhanced vulnerability of New Orleans to Katrina and its ilk. We have turned the Mississippi into an unnatural drainage channel and thus disrupted the replentishment of the Delta by deposition of silt. New Orleans is, famously, sinking. No amount of money will, in the end, make it safe unless a new ice age begins, lowering the sea levels from the over 300 ft they have risen since the end of the last ice age. The immense amounts of money spent on dykes to "protect" new Orleans, we have been told by the official state and federal investigators, was largely wasted because the dykes were poorly constructed and obsolete before finished. None of this seems directly releated to unemployment or colapse of the food and fuel distribution systems.

Once of the things that causes the first Depression to be called such- instead of a Recession- is the widespread nature of the collapse. It was global, one of my personal touchstones on defining the current mess as a depression.

Other recessions measured in the U.S. have had world-wide impact, including the recession that began in the last year of the Clinton administration. The current recession in the U.S,. is having Depression-like impact in some other nations.

Since such large events generally have greater timespans than is given in basic history, one can argue that much of the civil unrest following WW1 through to WW2 was caused- at least in part- by economic disturbances. (I realize it's fun to blame it all on FDR, as many people do, but it's much broader.)

FDR neither caused the Depression nor solved it. Blaming it on him is like blaming Truman for the "loss of China." As for "civil unrest," what unrest and where?

Stating that the government dealt well with hunger (in many cases it didn't) doesn't suddenly mean that the failures of food production and distribution were not issues. They were.

I do not suggest that the government ended hunger. It has always existed. What "failures of food production and distribution?" Your argument assumes its conclusion.

Yet the past 2 decades do show evidence of failures - especially in food and necessary goods (such as fuel) distribution and production. Also civil unrest.

The last time I saw gasoline stations without fuel was in the 1970's and was due to the boycott of the west by middle eastern oil producers. What "failures" "in the past 2 decades"? I'm live in the poorest, or send-poorest SMA in the U.S. I buy food and fuel regualrly. How have I missed these events?

I am not going to take all of my reading over the past 38 years and start teaching a history course, but a basic source quotation is in order:

***
Desperation Sets In

By 1930 life for many Americans had become unbearably grim. The country's economic collapse called for emergency measures and resources beyond the capacity of local and even state governments. Millions of Americans were displaced from homes and jobs—losses of an intensely personal nature. The obvious helplessness of elected officials and the reluctance of national government to consider larger and sometimes more unconventional measures of relief did little to earn the public's confidence. Disillusioned, desperate for solutions that were not forthcoming, and filled with despair, people banded together to take whatever action seemed justified by conditions they saw as not of their own making. In Arkansas a band of nearly five hundred armed farmers demanded food from a Red Cross administrator. When told that all supplies had been exhausted, the farmers descended upon the town of England and stripped its stores of food. Relief demonstrations broke out spontaneously across the nation. In Iowa councils of defense were organized to forestall farm foreclosures. Dairymen in Sioux City declared a general farm strike and prevented shipments of produce from reaching that city. Encouraged by their success, groups of farmers elsewhere came together to carry out similar strikes. Violence frequently resulted. In Nebraska in 1933 farmers, forcing their way past police barricades, marched on the state capitol to demand passage of a moratorium on the repayment of farm debt. In Crawford County, Iowa, bands of farmers and local authorities engaged in pitched battles that were ended when the governor imposed martial law. None of these demonstrations, however, quite achieved the notoriety or caused the federal government more concern than that of the veterans' "bonus march."

The Bonus March

In 1924 Congress, in a display of patriotic emotion and public gratitude, enacted a bill that awarded veterans for their service in World War I a "bonus" payment redeemable in full in 1945. Many veterans, experiencing financial problems both pressing and unanticipated, were eager to receive an earlier payout, a preference provided for in a bill introduced in 1932 by Congressman Wright Patman. In an effort to convince Congress to pass the bill, veterans began to gather in Washington to express their support. Among the first to arrive were a group of several hundred who, under the leadership of Walter W. Waters, referred to themselves as the Bonus Expeditionary Force. It is estimated that the veterans' numbers may have well exceeded sixteen thousand at the peak of their summer encampment in the nation's capital. While a few of the demonstrators occupied empty Treasury Department buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue, the majority settled on vacant land situated in the Anacostia flats along the Potomac River.
The Bonus Riots

On 17 June 1932 the Patman bill failed to pass the Senate, and Congress adjourned without taking any further action. Several of the demonstrators left the city, but the mood among the five thousand or more who remained was sullen. The government, under increased pressure from local residents to remove the veterans, was also running out of patience, but government officials remained undecided as to what action they should take. Tension increased as the marchers set up picket lines around government buildings, including the White House. On 28 July Treasury Department officials asked the police to evict a group of the bonus marchers who had settled into offices on Pennsylvania Avenue. The squatters resisted eviction, and, in the melee that followed, two of the veterans were killed by police, who claimed to have shot in their own defense. Without conferring with the district's police chief, Pelham Glassford, a former brigadier general sympathetic to the plight of the veterans, the police commissioner asked President Hoover for federal troops. Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur was sent to survey the scene and to make an independent assessment of the situation. The general, for reasons which are still unclear, did more than he was asked to do. The cavalry troops MacArthur dispatched to clear the scene drew their sabers and rode into the crowds gathering there. Tear gas was used against demonstrator and onlooker alike. As people fled the area, the cavalrymen, now reinforced with armored vehicles and infantry, moved across the bridge and into the bonus army's encampment, where they met fierce resistance from brick-and-rock-throwing veterans. Initially repulsed, the army returned more determined than ever to overcome any and all resistance. The shelters and possessions of the veterans were burned. Those detained were considered prisoners and roughly treated. For the next two days the demoralized veterans were rounded up, forced into trucks, and transported under guard to areas some distance from the capital, where they were released.

***

I doubt that you were reading eNotes version of history 38 years ago, and the above, while simple, is simply misleading.

The crisis in the agricultural communities was caused by a combination of factors, including the Depression, but also including price-fixing by dominant middleman corporations and severe doughts (famously referred to as the "Dust Bowl"). Isolated incidents by people in dire need were just that - isolated. Civilization did not end. With few exceptions, order remained in our large cities and towns. There was no need to hide from roaming mobs. I am sure the hundreds of thousands of homeless stole food when it was at hand. More often, they begged for honest work.

The Bonus Army incident is hardly a good example of civil unrest. The Bonus Marchers were orderly and exercising their right to petition the government to pass legislation when attacked by the governments forces. The first shots were fired AFTER the marchers had evacuated the half-demolished, otherwise-unoccuplied government building they had squatted in. Then, the Army troops moved with gas, fixed bayonets, and bare sabers. This is not how we handle peaceful protesters today.

For a more accurate view, the following from the D.C. Chief of Police:

Dangerous? No, except the danger of gradual rust and rot which attacks those with no occupation and no incentive. These are just middle-aged men out of a job.

They were there asking the government to pay their service bonuses immediately, rather than in 1945.

Their ignis fatuus, the bonus bill, had been pried out of the Ways and Means Committee, passed by the anti-administration House, and sent to the Senate, where, facing certain defeat, it was brought to a vote on June 17—'the tensest day in the capital since the War, a local paper noted. Some 10,000 veterans were massed on the Capitol grounds, with another 10,000 waiting across the Anacostia River. A newspaper woman asked Waters[, the Bonus Army commander], "What’s going to happen when these men learn of the defeat of the bill? It’s going to be swamped, you know."

"Nothing will happen," Waters said.

When darkness had fallen, Waters was asked to step inside the Capitol. He emerged a few minutes later and climbed up on the pedestal at the edge of the Capitol steps. "Prepare yourselves for a disappointment, men,'"he announced." The Bonus has been defeated, 62 to 18 …

The crowd stood motionless, in stunned silence, and Waters was fearful of what they might do. Elsie Robinson, a friendly Hearst columnist, whispered to him, "Tell them to sing 'America.'

"Sing ‘America’ and go back to your billets!" Waters shouted, and the men bared their heads and sang.

"These men,' the Star editorialized next day, 'wrote a new chapter on patriotism of which their countrymen may well be proud."

I doubt that these are the sorts giving rise to thoughts of where to make a last stand agaunst anarchy.

We have had far more civil unrest over real and imagined civil rights issues than unemployment and unavailability of food or fuel have ever produced. Large areas of cities have burned. More tear gas was expended and more shots fired - by several orders of magnitude - over "civil rights" than were expended on the Bonus Marcheers. If you wish to identify a threat to a breakdown of civil order, communial strife is far and way a bigger threat throughout our history than economic troubles, for whatever lesson that teaches about the future.

While I realize this may be redefined (as our true unemployment numbers have, we're actually higher than 1938 by the standards used at that time) endlessly, I feel this is a simple, basic, short, example of civil unrest.

Please assist us with proof that current unemployment numbers undercount the unemployed as compared to 1938. I would have thought that, with about 1,000,000 wandering the nation with no addresses, unemployment would have been undercounted in the Depression, but I am surely ready to be educated.

 

[koyote]

We spent the equivalent in today's dollars of hundreds of billions to CREATE the enhanced vulnerability of New Orleans to Katrina and its ilk. We have turned the Mississippi into an unnatural drainage channel and thus disrupted the replentishment of the Delta by deposition of silt. New Orleans is, famously, sinking. No amount of money will, in the end, make it safe unless a new ice age begins, lowering the sea levels from the over 300 ft they have risen since the end of the last ice age. The immense amounts of money spent on dykes to "protect" new Orleans, we have been told by the official state and federal investigators, was largely wasted because the dykes were poorly constructed and obsolete before finished. None of this seems directly releated to unemployment or colapse of the food and fuel distribution systems.

Contrast and compare, andrew and katrina. The problem here is that you've now got a narrow definition that appears to be simply "unemployment causing the end of civilization" - can't argue with you, because I don't think that's a gonna happen, either. "economy" translates to much more than unemployment, to me.

FDR neither caused the Depression nor solved it. Blaming it on him is like blaming Truman for the "loss of China." As for "civil unrest," what unrest and where?

Never blamed it on him. If anything, I think Hoover's policies had much more to do with it. I do find that there is a certain amount of "FDR" bashing that has no basis in reality, but that's not part of our little hijack.

I do not suggest that the government ended hunger. It has always existed. What "failures of food production and distribution?" Your argument assumes its conclusion.

The Dust Bowl effect was, at least in part, a result of the economic issues of the times.

I'm not trying to claim that you stated the government has ended hunger, but you seem to be arguing that the first Depression had no impact on food availability, production, or distribution. I'd really like to see the evidence on that one.

The last time I saw gasoline stations without fuel was in the 1970's and was due to the boycott of the west by middle eastern oil producers. What "failures" "in the past 2 decades"? I'm live in the poorest, or send-poorest SMA in the U.S. I buy food and fuel regualrly. How have I missed these events?

Um, you live in Russia?

I doubt that you were reading eNotes version of history 38 years ago, and the above, while simple, is simply misleading.

No, I wasn't. But - no offense- I'm not going to put the effort of transcribing the bookshelves just for you. FWIW, 38 years ago I wasn't reading. I suppose I should say over the past 34 years, and with regards to history, the past 32 or so.

The crisis in the agricultural communities was caused by a combination of factors, including the Depression, but also including price-fixing by dominant middleman corporations and severe doughts (famously referred to as the "Dust Bowl"). Isolated incidents by people in dire need were just that - isolated. Civilization did not end.

Again, the Depression was more than unemployment. It ain't just jobs.

Isolated incidents may not matter to you if you aren't involved. Or to me, for that matter. I am attempting to indicate that the current crisis can cause civil unrest and possibly even famine. I apologize for not being clear in stating that I am not restricting that to ENTIRE NATION, border to border civil unrest and food issues. Sorry about that.

No, civilization did not end. Nor do I think it is going to even if the oil stops flowing. Not sure where you are getting that from. Possibly other posters in this thread.

We have had far more civil unrest over real and imagined civil rights issues than unemployment and unavailability of food or fuel have ever produced.

So, because more trouble has been caused due to civil rights protesting, none has ever happened due to economic strife? ooooooooooooookay. I realize that sounds to farcicial for you to actually be stating that, and I don't think you are. But your argument that there has been NO, ZERO, NADA civil unrest due to the first Depression seems to be, flatly, wrong. Regardless of other demonstrations.

Please assist us with proof that current unemployment numbers undercount the unemployed as compared to 1938. I would have thought that, with about 1,000,000 wandering the nation with no addresses, unemployment would have been undercounted in the Depression, but I am surely ready to be educated.

Unemployment wasn't and couldn't be estimated in anything similar to the current phone poll methodology at the time. The current methods also have the very real effect of missing persons who don't "fit in the system".

First and foremost, current unemployment numbers do not count under-the-table income losses, certain types of persons (for example students working their way through school), nor do they count persons who have been unemployed for set periods of time (discouraged workers)- and farm employment (which is pretty much a big deal in this sort of discussion)- hell, you can't even get a standard ILO report out of the news at all!

It's very difficult to present truly accurate numbers for any period, even if you can define what constitutes accurate- and there's a certain amount of debate there. Some systems include the 'underemployed', some don't.

If the official numbers, without further cooking (remember the famous reclassification of fast food workers a while back?) get to 12%, I'll start getting pretty worried.

What's really going to be fun is to watch the coulter/limbaugh crowd start beating on the inaccuracy of the numbers more vehemently than the few left wingers who bothered did to Bush. That one is going to be amusing to me, at least.

 

[KuRUpTD]

 

[Old CW4]

The US is NOT self sufficient in food! Granted, we have the most fertile, arable land of any nation on the planet. However, growing food is one thing but canning/preserving/distributing it is another thing entirely.

I was four years old in 1938. I can remember pulling my little wagon as my family walked along the railroad tracks near Sioux City, IA picking up lumps of coal, potatos, and ears of corn that fell from the train cars. I also remember the farmer's markets when many, many local farmers drove into town to designated areas where they set up stalls and sold produce. Nearly all of those 'old time general' farmers are gone now, they've been replaced by 'agribusiness collectives' where the principal crops are soybeans and field corn. We no longer have all the small farmers and 'truck' farms which catered to the local markets and grew everything from radishes to melons. Our food distribution system these days is akin to the Post Office or FEDEX---all the regional one crop farms sell and ship to regional centers for processing. There is no longer a simple, small business farming infrastructure which can feed the local area. If/when the SHTF, the national transportation system will be one of the first systems to break down. Back in the 30s, many of the local farmers drove into town to the markets using horses or tractors and it wasn't that far. Today, however, we have urban sprawl many miles into the countryside. Point is, I think the general population could become hungry real quick.

My family moved to Oregon during WWII where my folks worked in the shipyards and other defense industries. After the war we moved back to Iowa and then south to the Quachita Mountains of Arkansas. I kid you not, in Arkansas the ONLY things we bought at the grocery in town were coffee and salt! Everything else came off the land and we ate like kings. We raised every kind of vegetable imaginable and kept chickens, hogs, cattle, and so on. We fished the local creeks and ponds and trapped for both fur and meat in the winter. Yes, we could have survived indefinitely, but those days are long gone. I made the mistake of travelling to our old homestead a few years back and found our 120 acres split up into five and ten acre plots with mobile homes on them. !!@#$##@! We can recreate these times and some hardy survivors no doubt will but it can't be done overnight and the initial years will be damned hard until you get established. Trying to do that while fighting off violent, starving refugees from the towns and cities will be a bitch! I foresee myriad small wars for survival all over the planet. I don't think it will be doomsday but it will damned sure be survival of the fittest (and the meanest).

 

[A.W.U.K.]

If the USA is no longer self-sufficient in food it is a very recent development. only around 5 years ago it was exporting around half of it's food production and planning to expand on that.

If it comes to it I don't think there will be any fighting off of starving and violent city refugees from your farm. 5,000 desperate men with hungry children will take your food off you and your only choice will be whether or not they kill you in the process.

 

[skimmerhorn]

i personally hope it all goes to hell in a hand basket so that people will learn how to survive and live within their means again! those that can't will be own their own. abolish the welfare state!!! it is no one's resposibility to help the unprepared. people have to be able to take resposibility for their own actions and decisions-period! grow and preserve your own food and kill your own meat. a few chickens will provide enough sustanance to keep you alive for quite sometime. eggs are very nutritious.

 

[nikko]

I've never really thought about it too much, but I'll have to say my 160 acres of hardwood and pine timber, with lots of small game and deer, and a bass pond will be my bug out spot. I'll need some seed and seed vegetables like potato, corn, and tomatoes and beans, and rice. 75-100 gallons of gas and 2 cycle oil, a chainsaw, with files, and spare chains, about a dozen. A good set of files, axe, hatchet, machete, shovel, and a .22 rifle, say a Ruger 10/22, and around 5,000-10,000 rounds or hollow point. Also, all my fishing gear, and several spools of mono. 1000 feet of paracord, my tent, three sleeping bags for the family, 100 lb flour, 5 gallons of canola or peanut oil , 25lbs of salt.

 

[Thomas Linton]

The OP asked about where to "make a stand" if critical shortages and civil unrest across sectors of the U.S. began to to make "parts of the country" "resemble New Orleans during [and, one suposes, after] Katrina."

I am no longer sure what you believe about the probablity or likelihood of such events, but when asked why you thought the current recession might lead ot a failure of the food supply and extended power outages, you replied, "There is actual historic Basis. Both here and in Russia."

I wondered -- and wonder -- about the "historic basis." I still wonder.

Contrast and compare, andrew and katrina. The problem here is that you've now got a narrow definition that appears to be simply "unemployment causing the end of civilization" - can't argue with you, because I don't think that's a gonna happen, either. "economy" translates to much more than unemployment, to me.

"Definition" of what? We were talking about the recession - decline in GDP and resulting unemployment -- causing "failure of the food supply and extended power outages" and "critical shortages and civil unrest ." You have, in your latest post, added "famine" as an outcome. I am seeking any basis in U.S. history to believe these are remotely likely outcomes of this recession. Don't see it.

Not sure about comparing Andrew and Katrina? In what respects? The respective competency of local, state, and national leaders? THAT present a real risk of hijacking.

Never blamed it on him. If anything, I think Hoover's policies had much more to do with it. I do find that there is a certain amount of "FDR" bashing that has no basis in reality, but that's not part of our little hijack.

Discussing how likely the OP's concerns might be hardly seems like a hijack. Topic drift, at worst. You brought up blaming FDR for the Depression. I replied that would be wrong. We have a passionate agreement.

The Dust Bowl effect was, at least in part, a result of the economic issues of the times.

And so I said - specifically.

I'm not trying to claim that you stated the government has ended hunger, but you seem to be arguing that the first Depression had no impact on food availability, production, or distribution. I'd really like to see the evidence on that one.

Didn't say that at all. Said some and isolated. The lesson to be learned as respects the OP's concerns is very dependent on degree and extent of unrest.

As for proving the negative, that's hard. I'll think about that. I spend huindreds of hours in the 1960's working for an oral history project interviewing people who were adults during the Depression. They were everything, including farmers, businessmen, teachers, factory workers, and housewives and lived on isolated farms and top-ten cities -- and "on the road." They talked about a lot of bad stuff, uncluding depression, homelessness, and suicides, but not shortages of food to buy, famine, or power outages. Several got electricity at home or place-of-work for the first time due to Rural Electrification. They mentioned occasional outages (I had 23 last year.) and the wonder of being able to listen to the radio and electric lights allowing reading at night without eyestrain. Nothing about extended outages.

Um, you live in Russia?

You brought up Russia as part of your "historic basis." Just trying to see if you are extrapolating from Russian experience to the U.S. future.

No, I wasn't. But - no offense- I'm not going to put the effort of transcribing the bookshelves just for you. FWIW, 38 years ago I wasn't reading. I suppose I should say over the past 34 years, and with regards to history, the past 32 or so.

What you posted appears, verbatim, at: http://www.enotes.com/1930-law-justice-american-decades/civil-unrest-bonus-army. It's a Cliff Notes version of history -- if that.

As for transcribing, transcribe not. Do or do not. Prove or prove not.

Again, the Depression was more than unemployment. It ain't just jobs.

Yes, by definition.

Isolated incidents may not matter to you if you aren't involved. Or to me, for that matter. I am attempting to indicate that the current crisis can cause civil unrest and possibly even famine. I apologize for not being clear in stating that I am not restricting that to ENTIRE NATION, border to border civil unrest and food issues. Sorry about that.

No, civilization did not end. Nor do I think it is going to even if the oil stops flowing. Not sure where you are getting that from. Possibly other posters in this thread.

We "can" be hit by a falling aricraft." There used to be civil unrest in Columbus Ohio every Michigan game. I am interested in evidence from history suggesting that a realistically possible outcome of this recession, the sixth I have lived through and not nearly the worst (except for banks/car-makers), will be the outcomes described - food delivery stoppages, extended power outages, civil unrest, and famine.

So, because more trouble has been caused due to civil rights protesting, none has ever happened due to economic strife? ooooooooooooookay. I realize that sounds to farcicial for you to actually be stating that, and I don't think you are. But your argument that there has been NO, ZERO, NADA civil unrest due to the first Depression seems to be, flatly, wrong. Regardless of other demonstrations.

I didn't make that argument. But I do point out that the country survived intact despite far-and-away the worst economic times we had seen since the 1870's.

Unemployment wasn't and couldn't be estimated in anything similar to the current phone poll methodology at the time. The current methods also have the very real effect of missing persons who don't "fit in the system".

First and foremost, current unemployment numbers do not count under-the-table income losses, certain types of persons (for example students working their way through school), nor do they count persons who have been unemployed for set periods of time (discouraged workers)- and farm employment (which is pretty much a big deal in this sort of discussion)- hell, you can't even get a standard ILO report out of the news at all!

It's very difficult to present truly accurate numbers for any period, even if you can define what constitutes accurate- and there's a certain amount of debate there. Some systems include the 'underemployed', some don't.

If the official numbers, without further cooking (remember the famous reclassification of fast food workers a while back?) get to 12%, I'll start getting pretty worried.

From what I have rad, it is hard to compare 1930's unemployment data to 1950's unemployment data to 2009 unployment data. That does not mean that 18% is trivial or that 8.5% today is comparable to the much worse figures for the 1930's or 1990's.

What's really going to be fun is to watch the coulter/limbaugh crowd start beating on the inaccuracy of the numbers more vehemently than the few left wingers who bothered did to Bush. That one is going to be amusing to me, at least.

Special pleaders afre not interested in the objective facts. That is not crazy -- for them -- because perception drives belief and behavior. So if Talent on Loan From Gahwd can convince you that the President is a Stalinist or the President can convince you that there was "no" "pork" in the "Stimulus Bill" who needs plain ol' facts. These are little "white lies" in service of a "Higher Truth."

As we see in this thread, some actually hope for anarchy and colapse of civil society. Ah to be a Warrior King!

 

[SubaruSTi]

In my bathroom, I keep all my Tp in there and it has water, a real toilet, and a magazine for ET.